Rebloging a survey of public opinion regarding climate change commissioned by the Global Warming Policy Forum.
GWPF Survey: Perceptions of climate impacts at odds with scientific data
A new Savanta ComRes poll commissioned by the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) has revealed low levels of public awareness of key trends relating to climate change and international development.
The survey of British adults suggests that the public perceive the impacts of climate change to be more negative than the academic research would suggest. However, there is also a significant minority of the public who say they are ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ concerned by climate change.
In total, 28% of respondents said they were ‘very concerned’ about climate change, 42% said ‘fairly concerned’, 18% were ‘not very concerned’ and 6.4% described themselves as ‘not at all concerned’.
To see the entire posting click on the following link:
The New York Magazine posted, “The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells. Some observers think that this posting is so bizarre that it must be a parody; meant to be something like a posting on the ONION.
I have been planning to discuss some information about CO2. When I read Part V of Mr. Wallace-Wells essay subtitled “Unbreathable Air”, I had to make it part of the discussion to illustrate why some consider the New York Magazine’s posting is a parody. Wallace-Wells notes:
“Our lungs need oxygen, but that is only a fraction of what we breathe. The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.
Where is he getting his information? Let’s look at what experts have to say about CO2 .
CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist say that the TLV is 5,000 ppm. The Threshold Limit Value (TLV) is the level which a worker can be exposed to day after day for a lifetime without adverse effects. Concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), will make some people feel drowsy according to some sources. Levels of 70,000 to 100,000 may cause suffocation. So, Wallace-Wells’ value of 1000ppm is truly a laughable statement. Perhaps anyone who reads the “Uninhabitable Earth” will experience a cognitive decline of 21%.
When you next read in your newspaper that global warming will visit some terrible thing upon you, try to think back to any of the predictions of doom that have ever really taken place.
From time to time I have posted, prediction after prediction made by the alarmists that have failed to come true. In the meantime, I write letters to the editors asking why they continue to publish the latest warmer prediction.I ask, “do you ever, (the editor of the newspaper), review the alarmist’s previous predictions”?
Enough of that. Here are a new batch of predictions that haven’t come true.The following is a reblog of Not A Lot Of People Know That posting titled “April Fools”:
President Elect Donald Trump is expected to defund much of the man-made global warming activity because it’s a theory that is generally unsupported by actual measurements. Although you will continue to read that it is happening and it is going to be catastrophic and if he defunds this research, we will leave a dying planet to our children.Perhaps, but the supporters of this theory do not seem to come up with anything better than computer forecasts of this upcoming doom.
The media are also going to tell you that everyone but a few skeptics and President Trump want something done now and money is no object.But do the people here in the US and across the world really feel that way?Results from polls and studies show that global warming action is hardly the people choice.Global warming is almost always the people’s last choice.The UN polled some 9 million plus people from around the globe asking them what they wanted.What they said was that they wanted; good education, good health care, jobs, honest government, affordable food, clean water and sanitary conditions, etc.The final item on the list, #17 was “Action taken on climate change.” That poll result can be seen by clicking here.
“Action taken on climate change” has a lot of champions all of which are financed by that movement.“Scientists”, governments, NGO’s, and tyrant rulers of nations looking for ‘free” money from the developed nations don’t want the gravy train to come to a halt.Think of the loss of income for those groups if the money is spent on the real needs of the globe’s people.
Genetically modified crops (GMC also known as GMO) are plants that have their DNA modified by the addition of other sourced DNA. This is done to impart additional characteristics to the plant so as to reduce their vulnurability to attacks by certain viruses, insects, and molds, for example. This ability has made GMCs in demand world-wide .
Between 1996 and 2015, the total surface area of land cultivated with GM crops increased by a factor of 100, from 17,000 km2 (4.2 million acres) to 1,797,000 km2 (444 million acres). 10% of the world’s arable land was planted with GM crops in 2010. In the US, by 2014, 94% of the planted area of soybeans, 96% of cotton and 93% of corn were genetically modified varieties. Use of GM crops expanded rapidly in developing countries, with about 18 million farmers growing 54% of worldwide GM crops by 2013. A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. This reduction in pesticide use has been ecologically beneficial, but benefits may be reduced by overuse. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries
SAFE FOR PEOPLE
Is the use of GMCs safe? From Wikipedias we learn that:
Many religions have a devil that is the source of all evil. The Church of Catastrophic Global Warming (CCGW) has devils and they are the human race with the exception of Al Gore, and his fellow travelers, of course. And those devils wield a terrible power—global warming which is the cause of all things evil. For example, President Obama (1) (2), the previously named Al Gore (3), Prince Charles (4), Bernie Sanders (5) and others have told us that, directly or indirectly, global warming is causing the terrorism and unrest in the world. And that it will get worse. Unless, and for sure, the enlightened are allowed to lead us away from our wicked path.
Fortunately, our President struck a powerful blow to the terrorist in Paris by the mere fact that a COP 21 meeting was convened. And that meeting is said to be the last chance to prevent the terrorist from taking over.
The UN Conference of Parties annual Climate Action Meeting Scheduled to begin on 30 November in Paris has the objective of preventing global temperature from rising as a direct result of carbon dioxide ((CO2) emissions. One would think the science supporting the contention that CO2 would be center stage, but it wont. Instead, the real drivers of this movement are politics and culture.
Perhaps Pope Francis’ recent Encyclical “Laudado Si” would be a good way to begin. While the Encyclical covered a range of topics, the part that dealt with the supposed threat of global warming drew the most attention. Despite the Pope having repeatedly said that discussion with all parties is necessary to find the proper solutions not a single skeptical scientist was allowed to participate. His advisors, with or without the Pope’s knowledge, made a conscious decision to exclude skeptical scientists. The Pope’s advisors however, did included in the discussion, atheists, anti-capitalists, population limiting advocates, scientists with works so poor the even their fellow warmers have reputiated them and others that believe skeptics should be imprisoned.
The “books were cooked” so to speak. The conclusions, foregone.
Beginning 30 November through 11 December, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) will hold the 21st Conference of Parties (COP 21) in Paris. As usual this one like the preceding annual COP meeting is being described as the last chance to save planet Earth from the ravages of carbon dioxide (CO2).
COP attendees from all over the world will attempt, once again, to agree on the reduction of the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and settle on compensation payments to the 3rd world countries that have emitted little CO2. Each of the 146 nations that emit 90% of the global CO2 emissions are being asked to submit the amount of CO2 emissions they will reduce by 2030 based away from the amount emitted in 2005 by that nation. They believe this is necessary to keep global temperature growth to two degrees Celsius.
The compensation side is contentious as those getting the compensation want more than those expected to provide it are willing to part with. For example, India says they will reduce their emissions by 33 to 35% but they need $2.5 trillion to accomplish that goal. Even China, the world’s largest emitter of CO2 is one of the nations expecting compensation. What a deal—-they have recently achieved an agreement with President Obama that lets them continue increasing their emissions until 2030 at which time their emissions should be three times those of the US.
Of course the concept of emission reductions and compensation that the COP wishes to accomplish ignores the data that shows that this is probably not necessary. CO2 is the life blood of the plant world. Without it there would be no plant life and that means of the end of humankind. Studies show that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere have had a beneficial effect on food production world-wide. Further the CO2 effect on the global temperatures appears to be secondary to natural forces. And fossil fuel use by the underpowered nations is a better answer to their needs than sending compensation to some dictator who will just pocket it and the people will receive no benefit. Subsequent postings will enlarge on these observations.
The Obama administration has instituted new criteria for supporting their climate change regulations. It is called the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The eventual cost of an increase in atmospheric CO2 is calculated for each regulation. The calculation is based upon their model’s forecasts of temperature, sea level, storms, droughts, etc. All the bad things they believe will happen if the rise of atmospheric CO2 is not stopped. You can be certain that each regulation could prevent millions, perhaps billions, of dollars damage according to their SCC calculation.
The SCC calculations use several discount rates that most rational economist would say were not germane. SSC presumes that the next generations will not have more knowledge and money to adapt to what ever actually happens. For example at the turn of the last century, do you think the forecasters would have come up with airplanes, nuclear energy, penicillin, satellites, for several example of things that have made enormous changes? And the many people that would be lifted out of poverty and provided a much-improved life?
Thanks to the Daily Caller we can enter into the minds of the radical warmers and their surrogates, the national media. The Daily Caller posted “Flashback: ABC News Envisioned Apocalyptic 2015 Triggered By Climate Change”. Using the “best” minds on the planet to graphically display the terror that climate change will cause, ABC ran a special in 2009 called “Earth 2100 “. The special follows a baby girl born in 2009 through her life span with stops along the way to describe how the planet was suffering through the effects of climate change. The first stop was 2015. You may wonder how you are missing all of these tragic happenings that the warmer scientist say would happen in 2015. But it is more likely that being a rational human, you will realize, once again, how far from the truth the great prognosticators are. These people have not changed since 2009. They just keep restarting their “end of the earth” smoke and mirrors” narratives, ignoring the need to apologize for how bad their last prediction was.
The Daily Caller quotes from the special:
“ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff says the show “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.” A Harvard University professor says, “We’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.” Other voices can be heard saying that “Flames cover hundreds of square mile” and “We expect more intense hurricanes.” Another voice says, “Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don’t know really know where the end is.”